A Battle for Proper Respect in Poem The Iliad - Essay Example

A Battle for Proper Respect Homers ic epic poem The Iliad is considered one of the greatest hero stories of all time since it follows the story of Achilles and his battle with the Trojan hero Hector. Both of these characters demonstrate classical heroic characteristics so that is what most studies tend to focus on. But there is another conflict in the story that is just as important to pay attention to because of what it says about human nature and the ancient Greek society. This conflict takes place early in the poem between Achilles and Agamemnon. Agamemnon is the leader of the Greek forces, a role that apparently goes to his head when his army begins having some success against the Trojans. His conflict with Achilles begins when Agamemnon is forced to give up his captured prize, the woman Chryseis who was the daughter of the local priest to Apollo. When Agamemnon refused to ransom her to her father, Apollo sent a plague against the Greek army until the girl was returned. Agamemnon agreed to return her on condition that he got the other girl, Briseis, who had been awarded to Achilles. Its easy to see the argument that takes place after that as childish pouting on the part of Achilles, but this conflict tells us perhaps more about this society than the epic battle between Hector and Achilles. In the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon, it is possible to see the social structure of the Greek army as a collection of allies rather than an encampment of a single, unified, cohesive army. Its also clear that the insult to Achilles is not only the lack of respect toward him as also being a leader of men in the taking away of a prize, but also in the over-generosity of Agamemnons later peace offerings which would subjugate Achilles as a servant of sorts to Agamemnon. Through his behavior, Achilles allows us to understand important subtleties of Greek social life and gain insight into important concepts in our own social structure. The ancient Greeks were organized according to a very specific social structure that had many subtleties not necessarily recognized today. Rather than being written as a specific code, these subtleties were contained in various expected forms of behavior and informal codes of conflict. For example, it is often forgotten among Achilles critics that the Greek army was not the single entity we think of today when we think of the American forces. Instead, it was a collection of armies, each led by their own leader as each leader agreed to fight on the side of Agamemnon (Donlan, 2002). This meant Agamemnon owed his leaders greater respect than he would even if they were just his generals because they were more like allies and fighting alongside him rather than under him. Not only is the war fought for very weak reasons on the part of the Greeks, but Agamemnons consistent ability to act in ways perceived to anger the gods undermines his ability to lead and inspire others to follow him. "The asymmetry of incentive is compounded by the weak loyalty of the allies to the leader and the leaders weak ability to control them. As they are presented, the men of the allied contingents on both sides are powerful, independent chiefs whose only obligation to the leader lies in their agreement to help" (Donlan, 2002: 157). In consistently failing to act in ways that respect this important element of the social structure, Agamemnon violates the social structure and attempts to create a system of his own in which all of the other armies are subservient to his whims. It is important for todays audience to understand this important distinction in their relationship. It isnt just an enlisted general disobeying his commander-in-chief, it is a supposedly respected ally, an equal of sorts, being disrespected. However, as Donlan (2002) points out, the organization of the Greek forces is deliberately blurry. It is never fully clear whether the various different groups attacking Troy are allies or a single combined entity. This uncertainty regarding the true power relationship between Achilles and Agamemnon must be considered as well. Would Achilless behavior still be considered justified if he were a subordinate rather than an equal? Even if Achilles is considered to be a high-ranking servant under Agamemnon, it is still Achilles who continues to demonstrate appropriate leadership behavior leading up to his disagreement with Agamemnon over Briseis. Nikolopoulou (2005) points out that it is Achilles who summons the various leaders in the camp to discuss the illness that has been going through the camp. "Achilless summons to discuss the disaster that has befallen their camp could be read antithetically as genuine concern for the welfare of the army and deference to the legitimacy of collective council, but also as his eagerness to usurp the leadership of Agamemnon. Even in the latter case, however, Achilles is still curiously responding to the absence of the commander who, as it turns out, is the very cause of this disaster, which he unwittingly or conveniently neglects to address" (Nikolopoulou, 2005: 234). In his interaction with Agamemnon at this instance, Achilles reveals a deep-seated anger with Agamemnon apparently fueled by Agamemnons failure to act with honor and responsibility toward the people under his authority. "Achilless insistence on justice as much as the impossibility of its implementation in the Achaian camp expose a fundamental problem of war - namely that justice and war are not commensurate, and that the very idea of a rule of war may be a contradiction in terms" (Nikolopoulou, 2005: 237). The depth of Achilless anger also indicates it has been festering for a while, as the Greeks still havent won the war nine years later and so many things have gone wrong, including Troys ability to bring in their own allies and even the odds. It is precisely during times of war, Nikolopoulou argues, that issues of justice and moral right must be upheld most, something Achilles recognizes and Agamemnon does not; however, it makes all the difference in the loyalty of the troops. In taking Briseis from Achilles the way he does, Agamemnon inflicts what Shay (2012) calls a moral injury which affects not just Achilles but the whole army. A moral injury, according to Shay, has three parts. Its a 1) betrayal of whats right 2) by someone who holds legitimate authority 3) in a high stakes situation. The act has to be considered in the context of the war itself. As Nikolopoulou (2005) points out, this war is supposedly fought in order to retrieve Helen for Menelaus after she left him for Paris. Achilles is being asked to give his life in this war and the lives of his men in order to get a woman back for a man he respects because that man loves the woman in question. When Achilles claims a woman (Briseis) as war prize and as a woman he loves, he is expected to simply relinquish her when Agamemnon demands it, giving up his war prize because Agamemnon is forced to accept ransom and must give his woman back (but keep the ransom paid for her). The honor Achilles is expected to die protecting for Menelaus is not associated with Achilles in spite of his high position and many exploits benefitting the Greeks. Yet the injury inflicted by Agamemnon on Achilles is not limited to Achilles alone. "What Agamemnon did to Achilles was no private wrong. There are no private wrongs in the use of military power. Everyone watches the trust-worthiness of those who wield power over them - all the time" (Shay, 2012: 6). Proving Agamemnons treatment of Achilles is a grave insult psychologically, Shay points out how his taking of Briseis violates all three of the above elements of a moral injury and, because it was done publicly, the injury is inflicted on the whole army. Their confidence in the moral leadership of Agamemnon is shattered and they no longer believe he is making decisions based on whats good for the people. Proof for this can be found in the next days events where the army abandons to the boats upon Agamemnons testing of them. Finally realizing his mistake, Agamemnon attempts to make amends, but fails again to respect the independence and honor of Achilles. Although many scholars accept Achilles withdrawal from the war as a heroic stand against being improperly respected in Agamemnons taking of Briseis, they are less forgiving of him when he refuses to accept Agamemnons generous offer of compensation. According to Avery (1998), for example, Achilless refusal of Agamemnons offer can be seen to be a refusal to conform with expected social customs. Phoenix, established to be Achilless second father, sent by his real father to train Achilles in the art of war, is part of the delegation that comes to present Agamemnons offer. In his presentation, the language Phoenix uses reveals that he is essentially handing Achilles over to be under the care of Agamemnon, establishing Agamemnon as Achilless third father (Avery, 1998). Once this is done, Achilless refusal to accept Agamemnons gifts is seen to be disobeying the wishes of the father, breaking social rules, rather than Achilless recognition that the gifts are suspiciously generous or that there is a greater good to be fought for. As Sammons (2008) points out, it shouldnt necessarily be taken as a given that Agamemnons gifts are in line with the traditional values held by the ancient Greeks. Up to this point, Agamemnon hasnt shown a great deal of interest in following traditional values. He consistently dishonors the gods and has to do things like kill his daughter in order to sail to Troy and have his army suffer from plague to force him into honoring the code and allowing Chryseis to return to her father. By contrast, Achilles has usually followed the traditional values. Realizing this, its necessary to take a closer look at what these gifts really represent. According to Donlan (2002), the gifts are intended, "by their extraordinary abundance, to elevate [Agamemnons] prestige and to put Achilles under severe obligation. The offer, if accepted, would have made Agamemnon the winner and would have given him power over Achilles." While Donlans argument paints Agamemnon as a cunningly malicious ruler looking to trap Achilles under his wing, further examination does not support this view. The compensation Agamemnon is offering is supposedly to make up for taking Briseis from Achilles and disrespecting him as also a leader of men, in which case, his offer of tripods and gold and women, including Briseis, should have been enough. But then Agamemnon adds on the Trojan women, one of his own daughters and seven kingdoms, essentially committing Achilles to winning the Trojan war for Agamemnon, becoming Agamemnons son-in-law and thus again under familial obligation to him, and placing Achilles in charge over seven cities as a free administrator under Agamemnons direction and in his debt. However, Sammons has a good argument that Agamemnon didnt necessarily intend his gifts to be the kinds of traps they actually would be. He argues that the king merely got carried away with his own expansiveness, which he was also prone to doing. Achilles refusal of the gifts is also based, to at least some degree, on his own knowledge that his choices are to either go home and live or to stay at Troy and die. Neither choice would enable him to accept Agamemnons gifts even if he felt they were appropriate. This reality throws some doubt as to whether Agamemnons gifts were truly out of line. Achilles speech about the limitless nature of the gifts keeps the argument valid that they would have the effect of subjugating Achilles under Agamemnon, but does not support the claim that Agamemnon made his offer maliciously. Regardless, the effect would have been the same. The importance of the Iliad to todays world is contained within this battle between Achilles and Agamemnon as it is one of our earliest examples of protest poetry. Through this form of poetry, nations have been born. According to Sokolon (2008), protest poetry can work to question authority or boundaries, draw attention to injustice, and to provide a different vision of social order. The poems taught people how to question authority by first showing them how it was done among the elite class, such as in the battle between Achilles and Agamemnon. "This ancient story is more than a narration of privilege but reflects the heart of political protest - anger at self-seeking, unjust, and absolute political authority. Achilles story also reflects the human journey that is the source of protest poetry; it is a journey in which a man comes to confront the limitations and tragedy of human choice and the capriciousness and sorrow of the human condition" (Sokolon, 2008: 49-50). Through its questioning of Agamemnons moral authority, by providing the chance to see the injustice of Achilles situation whether losing or receiving, and by showing the contrast in leadership between Agamemnon and Achilles, Sokolon traces the various ways in which the Iliad can be classified as a protest poem. "The story of the Iliad, seen from the perspective of political protest, remains relevant as it reveals motivations underlying protest and the importance of poetry as a form of communication and source of political meaning" (Sokolon, 2008: 50). Even though it is the story of an elite male in his prime protesting against another elite male at the height of his career, the Iliad could continue to serve as an example today of a man standing up for important principles and moral justice. Works Cited Avery, Harry C. "Achilles Third Father." Hermes. Vol. 126, I. 4, 1998. Print. Donlan, Walter. "Achilles the Ally." Arethusa. Vol. 35, N. 1, Winter 2002. Print. Homer. The Iliad. R. Fagles, trans. New York: Penguin, 1990. Print. Nikolopoulou, Kalliopi. "Deserting Achilles: Reflections of Intimacy and Disinheritance." European Journal of English Studies. Vol. 9, N. 3, December 2005. Print. Sammons, Benjamin. "Gift, List & Story in Iliad.9.115-61" The Classical Journal. Vol. 103, N. 4, 2008. Print. Shay, Jonathan. "Moral Injury." Intertexts. Vol. 16, N. 1, Spring 2012. Print. Sokolon, Marlene K. "The Iliad: A Song of Political Protest." New Political Science. Vol. 30, N. 1, March 2008. Print. Read More